ugh. I intentionally avoid movies with him in it. I'd like to hear your rationale on him...

Full discosure: I know Brendan. Not well, but I've met him numerous times over a number of years (including at his wedding) through a friends-in-common kind of thing. (A very cool, down-to-earth guy, fwiw.)
I think Brendan is pretty limited as an actor, but is a pretty good physical comedian who can be effective when properly cast. I applaud his intentions in taking on some more challenging roles - like Gods and Monsters with Ian McKellen - but think they generally prove too much for him (it's even more painful watching someone struggle in a role when you know them personally).
But credit where credit is due - his performances in Encino Man and Airheads were sublime . . .

ugh. I intentionally avoid movies with him in it. I'd like to hear your rationale on him...

It's definitely true that he's been in a lot of lowbrow films. But given the right material, he puts in a nuanced performance that's usually a lot deeper than most people will give him credit for.

In both Gods and Monsters and the remake of The Quiet American, he plays variations on the good-natured all-American type character, but he gets the characters - he's not just reading the lines, each one has a very distinct physicality and mindset.

He had a recurring role in a couple of seasons of Scrubs, too, playing the brother-in-law struck with leukemia. He gets a lot of laughs and comes off as a really likeable guy.

So did I. I grew up on Indiana Jones, so the archeology, adventure of it all was right up my alley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdawson808

How about Blast From the Past? Genius

See, this I didn't like. It was too obvious what was going to happen. His name is Adam, and he meets a girl named Eve, so you know right away they're going to end up together. Plus, the fish out of water stuff got old fast, not to mention that he did sort of the same thing in Encino Man. Walken was pretty good as the crazy dad though. I rented the movie with my cousin and we didn't even watch the whole thing, I ended up seeing the rest on cable later.

ANother actor who is very very VERY underrated: Shimura Takashi (see my avatar!). Most people probably associate him as a background actor in things like Gojiira or as the leader in Seven Samurai. But watch Ikiru and tell me that he is not supremely talented.

Oh, and Harvey Keitel has a range that is usually left untouched (Ulysse's Gaze is a good example of him putting down more instrospection to a part).

I must have slept through the course in self-important pop culture aficianados, as I did so many others.
I get that you're interested in Bond. I never suggested otherwise. I'm not. You're right - the "sociology of film" isn't interesting to me. If it's interesting to you, bully for you. That brings us back to the point I originally raised - people can legitimately have different tastes and interests without one of them having to be a "victim of sheep mentality" or whatever other self-stroking constructions you put on it. The rest of your random, manic little tantrums are directed at arguments I never raised. And dude, Kenny G rocks - sociologically speaking, he's what made American Hardcore work as a film. It's just a shame that MacKaye doesn't give him enough credit for his critical role in Fugazi's development.

For a lawyer your reading comprehension is definately a bit different. I wonder how that manifests itself in your billing.

The sheep mentality idea is pretty simple. Some people have tastes different to mine, and that's fine, because there is a reason for it and they are individuals who have made conscious decisions based on what they think is important. However, many people who have not gone through said "due dilligence" will subscribe to whatever belief is popular for whatever reason. Who is the best Bond is a fairly innocuous demonstration of this phenomenon, but this mentality pervades all levels of society, and everyone at some point in time subscribes to some belief which they haven't really thought out just because it's popular, or they don't want to be the odd one out.

I don't see how that's self-stroking but I suppose it's your job to muddy every situation with half baked ad hominems.

Here's my view on why I like Sean Connery the best. Let' start with what I didn't like about the others:

- Lazenby - only around for one movie - many hail it as one of the best - I thought it was an incredible bore (perhaps I just couldn't get past Telly Savalas) - Lazenby did nothing to distinguish himself as Bond, IMHO

- Moore - too "foppish" for lack of a better word - he was good at the suave part, and he certainly delivered the quips better than anyone, but I just had trouble seeing him as an action star - also, some of his films went above and beyond in the "camp" department

- Dalton - his movies weren't particularly well written (not his fault) - also, much like Moore was too foppish, Dalton played the part of the action star well, but looked out of place in his tuxedo

- Brosnan - had the potential to be the best Bond - the movies were substandard, for the most part, however (invisible car!!!???) - he was definitely good at both the suave side and the action star side

This leaves us with Connery. As with Brosnan, he could play both the suave side and the action star side. This leaves us with the content of the films themselves. I just find the Connery films to be better. Thus, I prefer Connery over Brosnan.

Here's my view on why I like Sean Connery the best. Let' start with what I didn't like about the others:

- Lazenby - only around for one movie - many hail it as one of the best - I thought it was an incredible bore (perhaps I just couldn't get past Telly Savalas) - Lazenby did nothing to distinguish himself as Bond, IMHO

- Moore - too "foppish" for lack of a better word - he was good at the suave part, and he certainly delivered the quips better than anyone, but I just had trouble seeing him as an action star - also, some of his films went above and beyond in the "camp" department

- Dalton - his movies weren't particularly well written (not his fault) - also, much like Moore was too foppish, Dalton played the part of the action star well, but looked out of place in his tuxedo

- Brosnan - had the potential to be the best Bond - the movies were substandard, for the most part, however (invisible car!!!???) - he was definitely good at both the suave side and the action star side

This leaves us with Connery. As with Brosnan, he could play both the suave side and the action star side. This leaves us with the content of the films themselves. I just find the Connery films to be better. Thus, I prefer Connery over Brosnan.

If I had to list them, I'd go:

Connery
Brosnan
Moore
Dalton
Lazenby

Of course, the jury's still out on Daniel Craig.

Baa.

Alright, that makes sense to me. I've always maintained that Brosnan is the best, but his films were terrible, which has nothing to do with it. He even said it himself that the gratuitous action and cheesy quips drove him away and had fights with the producers.

I also think there's an element of nostalgia involved with it, the same way a lot of people think sports stars from their youth are better than the ones today, largely because it's easier to buy into "the myth" when they're a child.